The Problem with Christians

[Angrboda]

Are you seriously arguing how unlikely the eye would be if it didn't evolve, that it occurred just by single step random mutation? Nobody is arguing that the eye came into being purely by chance. Evolution is a process involving self-reinforcing steps. That you present this bogus calculation as if it had anything to do with anything is ridiculous. You can't demonstrate design by knocking down a straw man representation of evolution. The evolution of the eye is well documented and it didn't occur by 'random chance'.

[LadyForCamus]

Spinning evolution out of straw is the ONLY way design proponents can argue against it.

[Ravenshire]

You're going with the eye to support your creator, eh? Ok then, why does your creator love Octopi more than humans? It gave them a far superior eye.

I'm simply demonstrating the statistical impossibility that the eye evolved through DNA mutation. You should address this.

Irreducible complexity has been addressed ad nauseum on this forum. Perhaps you could show a little intellectual honesty by researching it yourself before coming here to spew your bile all over the place. Prove you give a shit about truth and honesty. Google "debunking irreducible complexity" and see what you get.

I won't be holding my breath waiting. I know the idea scares the shit out of you.

[Esquilax]

[robvalue]

[AJW333]

[LadyForCamus]

Can you address the first part of my comment first? The one in regards to what Julia posted to you? Cuz, ya know...it's the part where you're wrong. Thanks. Then I'll be happy to listen to your distorted statistics.

[AJW333]

if you want the shortened version, it goes more like this;

Analyzing the random DNA mutations required to produce the proteins that form the eye reveals it to be not just unlikely but a statistical impossibility.

---

I'm simply demonstrating the statistical impossibility that the eye evolved through DNA mutation. You should address this.

---

Can we stick to the issue, which is evidence for design? By showing you that random mutations of the DNA cannot produce the necessary structures to produce the eye, it leaves us with the inevitable conclusion that it has been designed.

The point i'm trying to make is that even if you could inference a designer you cant identify said entity.  We cannot look beyond the petri dish at the designer.  We are in a situation that one bacteria is saying to another "something must be beyond us and I am stating that it must be in accordance to my idea."  The other bacteria says "I don't know but I'm not going to accept your idea of this until that entity communicates with me because that is the only way to know for sure."  The real difference between this scenario and the god idea is that we cannot communicate with bacteria but it is claimed that a god can communicate with us.  I'm sorry but i cannot concede to such arrogance, if such a being did in fact exist, that it would care if we believe in it or not or that it "loves" us.
It is still much more humble and noble to say "I don't know so I keep looking."

I don't know if you saw my wristwatch analogy but if you found a watch with no markings, you would still conclude that it was designed by someone, even if you couldn't identify that person by looking at the watch. You would still be satisfied that they existed. Tracking down the designer may indeed be difficult but one thing is for certain - they exist. And another thing is possible - if you found him, you may not like him.

[Cyberman]

If neanderthals and regular humans interbred, then wouldn't that make them the same species?

No, they're different species but closely related ones. Lions and tigers can interbreed, but that doesn't make them the same species.

[Kitan Etos]